We carried out a prospective, multicenter observational study using a specifically developed checklist. The steps of the handover process in the ED were documented in relation to qualification of the emergency medical services (EMS) staff, disease severity, injury patterns, and treatment priority. Results: We documented and evaluated 721 handovers based on the checklist. According to ISBAR (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation), MIST (Mechanism, Injuries, Signs/Symptoms, Treatment), and BAUM (Situation [German: Bestand], Anamnesis, Examination [German: Untersuchung], Measures), almost all handovers showed a deficit in structure and scope (99.4%). The age of the patient was reported 339 times (47.0%) at the time of handover. The time of the emergency onset was reported in 272 cases (37.7%). The following vital signs were transferred more frequently for resuscitation room patients than for treatment room patients: blood pressure (BP)/(all comparisons p < 0.05), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO 2) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Physicians transmitted these vital signs more frequently than paramedics BP, HR, SpO 2 , and GCS. A handover with a complete ABCDE algorithm (Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Environment/Exposure) took place only 31 times (4.3%). There was a significant difference between the occupational groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Despite many studies on handover standardization, there is a remarkable inconsistency in the transfer of information. A "hand-off bundle" must be created to standardize the handover process, consisting of a uniform mnemonic accompanied by education of staff, training, and an audit process. [West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(2)401-409.] that treatment requires precise timing, rapid decision-making, and specific expertise. 2,3 Furthermore, the handover is critical for the relaying of information, such as interventions that have occurred and details from the emergency scene. The transfer from prehospital care to the ED is always an interprofessional process involving at least two professional groups. This can
Background The presentational flow chart “unwell adult” of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) occupies a special role in this triage system, defined as the nonspecific presentation of an emergency patient. Current scientific studies show that a considerable proportion of emergency room patients present with so-called "nonspecific complaints". The aim of the present study is to investigate in detail the initial assessment of emergency patients triaged according to the presentational flow chart "unwell adult". Methods Monocentric, retrospective observational study. Results Data on 14,636 emergency department visits between March 12th and August 12th, 2019 were included. During the observation period, the presentational flow chart "unwell adult" was used 1,143 times and it was the third most frequently used presentational flow chart. Patients triaged with this flow chart often had unspecific complaints upon admission to the emergency department. Patients triaged with the “unwell adult” chart were often classified with a lower triage level. Notably, patients who died in hospital during the observation period frequently received low triage levels. The AUC for the MTS flow chart “unwell adult” and hospitalization in general for older patients (age ≥ 65 years) was 0.639 (95% CI 0.578–0.701), and 0.730 (95% CI 0.714–0.746) in patients triaged with more specific charts. The AUC for the MTS flow chart “unwell adult” and admission to ICU for older patients (age ≥65 years) was 0.631 (95% CI 0.547–0.715) and 0.807 (95% CI 0.790–0.824) for patients triaged with more specific flow charts. Comparison of the predictive ability of the MTS for in-hospital mortality in the group triaged with the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” revealed an AUC of 0.682 (95% CI 0.595–0.769) vs. 0.834 (95% CI 0.799–0.869) in the other presentational flow charts. Conclusion The presentational flow chart "unwell adult" is frequently used by triage nurses for initial assessment of patients. Patient characteristics assessed with the presentational flow chart "unwell adult" differ significantly from those assessed with MTS presentational flow charts for more specific symptoms. The quality of the initial assessment in terms of a well-functioning triage priority assessment tool is less accurate than the performance of the MTS described in the literature.
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Ziel der Arbeit Für die klinische Sichtung in der Zentralen Notaufnahme (ZNA) existiert bisher für den Massenanfall von Verletzten kein standardisierter Sichtungsalgorithmus. Mit dem Erscheinen der vierten überarbeiteten und erweiterten Auflage des Manchester-Triage-Systems (MTS) wird dem Nutzer ein spezielles Präsentationsdiagramm („Massenanfall“) angeboten. In der vorliegenden Studie wurde erstmalig das Präsentationsdiagramm „Massenanfall“ des MTS im klinischen Setting hinsichtlich seiner Güte untersucht. Methodik In der vorliegenden monozentrischen, prospektiven Studie wurden 215 traumatologische und 235 nichttraumatologische Patienten unter Verwendung des Präsentationsdiagramms „Massenanfall“ gesichtet und in eine der drei Sichtungskategorien (SK I–III) eingruppiert. Ergebnisse Das MTS-Diagramm stufte die traumatologische Kohorte in 80 % der Fälle korrekt ein. In 15,35 % erfolgte eine Über- und in 4,65 % eine Untertriage. Hierbei wurde eine Sensitivität/Spezifität von 84/99 % für die SK I, 87/78 % für SK II sowie 76/94 % für SK III erreicht. Die nichttraumatologischen Patienten wurden in 59,57 % korrekt kategorisiert sowie in 15,75 % über- und in 24,68 % untertriagiert. Die Sensitivität/Spezifität für SK I lag bei 50/95 %, für SK II bei 49/71 % und für SK III bei 73/65 %. Diskussion Zusammenfassend war der Algorithmus leicht und schnell anzuwenden und identifizierte traumatologische Patienten mit lebensbedrohlichen Verletzungen treffsicher. Es wurde aber auch deutlich, dass die Diskriminante „Gehfähigkeit“ zu Beginn der Sichtung bzw. rein physiologische Entscheidungskriterien mit einer schlechten Testgüte einhergingen. Nichttraumatologische Krankheitsbilder wurden qualitativ ungenügend kategorisiert.
Determining SARS-CoV-2 immunity is critical to assess COVID-19 risk and the need for prevention and mitigation strategies. We measured SARS-CoV-2 Spike/Nucleocapsid seroprevalence and serum neutralizing activity against Wu01, BA.4/5 and BQ.1.1 in 1,411 individuals who received medical treatment in five emergency departments in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. We detected Spike-IgG in 95.6%, Nucleocapsid-IgG in 24.0% and neutralization against Wu01, BA.4/5 and BQ.1.1 in 94.4%, 85.0%, and 73.8% of participants, respectively. Neutralization against BA.4/5 and BQ.1.1 was reduced 5.6- and 23.4-fold compared to Wu01. Accuracy of S-IgG detection for determination of neutralizing activity against BQ.1.1 was reduced substantially. Furthermore, we explored previous vaccinations and infections as most important correlates of improved BQ.1.1 neutralization using multivariable and Bayesian network analyses. Given an adherence to COVID-19 vaccination recommendations of only 67.7% of all participants, we highlight the need for improvement of vaccine-uptake to reduce the COVID-19 risk in upcoming infection-waves with immune evasive variants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.